[Leica] Basic question about digital noise in the shadows

[scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin)]

Ok, I got lucky. Googled and got this on the 1st or 2nd hit. (Apologies if
the formattng gets screwy below.)

Here's a longish quote I want to examine:  "The best way to remove noise is
not to create them in the first place. To me, it means ISO100 as much as 
possible
and don't underexpose by too much (I do want to remind everybody about 
erring
on the underexposure side still holds, just don't overdo it). When 
contrast is high,
use fill flash or reflector if possible....  I group noise into 2 
catagories, shadow noise
and long exposure noise. Shadow noise is a general low level noise that 
spreads out
in dark areas. [snip] Note that shadow noise could happen in brightly 
lit photos, it
could lurk in dark shadows, or one of the other color channels (for 
example, blue
channel on a red subject)."

Ok, this does correspond to my own digi experiences over the past two years
(including the blue channel noise thing, interesting).

Does anyone else think that this is *completely* retarded?

He says clearly that very well exposed pictures can have oodles of noise 
"in the
shadows."  So if there are shadows, use fill flash if possible.

Huh!?!?!?

So, think of Wynn Bullock's photographs with those beautiful and seemingly
infinite shades of black and gray, and then something in the composition 
that
soars from the shadows toward paper white (not necessarily getting there).

http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real38.jpg

This looks crappy compared to the LensWork reproduction. But it's just an
example, and I hope it will sufficiently illustrate the point. I'm sure most
of us can think of other beautifully toned, "nearly all shadows" kinds 
of fine
art photographs.

One more very important detail. I've done noise reduction for shadow noise.
It *softens* things up quite a bit.  Often doesn't matter.  But I'm 
talking now
about photos where there is lots of *very sharp*, important detail on the
"shadow side" of the histogram.

In fact, sometimes nearly all the important detail can be in the shadows.

http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real15.jpg

This doesn't *quite* illustrate this point, but it's pretty close, and 
we can
all recall the myriad fine art pictures of black-to-dark rocks. 

Sharp, sharp, sharp. We're talking LF 4x5 or 8x10 sharp.  So throwing
alot of blur or any other technique that will compromise the sharpness
and detail of the shadowy objects would most often be completely
unacceptable.


So gosh, were he a digi shooter, I guess we'd have to advise Mr. Bullock
to use fill flash.

This is a joke, right?  Come on, I'm LMAO, have a chuckle along me.

If the quote above is true, a digital camera would be nearly unsuitable 
for any
serious art photography where the shadow side of the histogram is where all
the action is. It would only be good for vaction pics of the Taj Mahal, some
happy snaps using fill flash and other brightly lit scenes - or PJ work 
where
no one cares.

Yeah, I'm exagerating again :-)

So this is my question.

With a DSLR, can one take "oodles of shades of gray" style pictures, or 
even
pictures where sharp objects in shadows dominate or significantly 
complement
a well lit subject???? Like a nude on lovely black wet rocks, just for 
example.

If you made it this far, many thanks.

I'd love to be told that I've got some blind spot, that I'm missing 
something
very basic and fundamental.

Or, I'd love to be told that the above quote is hogwash. (Not likely)

Better yet, I'd love to be clued into some by now well known and well worn
technique for making beautiful, sharp "shadowy" pictures with a DSLR.

I appreciate any insight or advice anyone has to offer.

Scott

-- 
Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps
Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35
(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)